Commitments and Contingencies
|9 Months Ended|
Sep. 30, 2019
|Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]|
|Commitments and Contingencies||
Note 15 – Commitments and Contingencies
Concentration of Credit Risk
Credit risk with respect to accounts receivable is generally diversified due to the large number of patients comprising the client base. The Company does have significant receivable balances with government payers and various insurance carriers. Generally, the Company does not require collateral or other security to support customer receivables. However, the Company continually monitors and evaluates its client acceptance and collection procedures to minimize potential credit risks associated with its accounts receivable and establishes an allowance for uncollectible accounts and as a consequence, believes that its accounts receivable credit risk exposure beyond such allowance is not material to the financial statements.
A number of proposals for legislation continue to be under discussion which could substantially reduce Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) reimbursements to hospitals and clinical laboratories. Depending upon the nature of regulatory action, and the content of legislation, the Company could experience a significant decrease in revenues from Medicare and Medicaid (CMS), which could have a material adverse effect on the Company. The Company is unable to predict, however, the extent to which such actions will be taken.
The Company maintains its cash balances in high credit quality financial institutions. The Company’s cash balances may, at times, exceed the deposit insurance limits provided by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
From time-to-time, the Company may be involved in a variety of claims, lawsuits, investigations and proceedings related to contractual disputes, employment matters, regulatory and compliance matters, intellectual property rights and other litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company operates in a highly regulated industry which may inherently lend itself to legal matters. Management is aware that litigation has associated costs and that results of adverse litigation verdicts could have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. The Company’s policy is to expense legal fees and expenses incurred in connection with the legal proceedings in the period in which the expense is incurred. Management, in consultation with legal counsel, has addressed known assertions and predicted unasserted claims below.
Biohealth Medical Laboratory, Inc. and PB Laboratories, LLC (the “Companies”) filed suit against CIGNA Health in 2015 alleging that CIGNA failed to pay claims for laboratory services the Companies provided to patients pursuant to CIGNA - issued and CIGNA - administered plans. In 2016, the U.S. District Court dismissed part of the Companies’ claims for lack of standing. The Companies appealed that decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which in late 2017 reversed the District Court’s decision and found that the Companies have standing to raise claims arising out of traditional insurance plans as well as self-funded plans. In July 2019, the Companies and EPIC Reference Labs, Inc. filed suit against Cigna Health for failure to pay claims for laboratory services provided. Cigna Health, in turn, sued for improper billing practices. Both cases are in the early stages.
The Company’s Epinex Diagnostics Laboratories, Inc. subsidiary was sued in a California state court by two former employees who alleged that they were wrongfully terminated, as well as for a variety of unpaid wage claims. The parties entered into a settlement agreement of this matter on July 29, 2016 for approximately $0.2 million, and the settlement was consummated on August 25, 2016. In October of 2016, the plaintiffs in this matter filed a motion with the court seeking payment for attorneys’ fees in the approximate amount of $0.7 million. On March 24, 2017, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for payment of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $0.3 million, and the Company accrued this amount in its consolidated financial statements. Additionally, the Company is seeking indemnification for these amounts from Epinex Diagnostics, Inc., the seller of Epinex Diagnostic Laboratories, Inc., pursuant to a Stock Purchase Agreement entered into by and among the parties.
In February 2016, the Company received notice that the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) placed a lien against Medytox Solutions, Inc. and its subsidiaries relating to unpaid 2014 taxes due, plus penalties and interest, in the amount of $5.0 million. The Company paid $0.1 million toward its 2014 tax liability in March 2016. The Company filed its 2015 Federal tax return on March 15, 2016 and the accompanying election to carryback the reported net operating losses was filed in April 2016. On August 24, 2016, the lien was released, and in September of 2016 the Company received a refund from the IRS in the amount of $1.9 million. In November of 2016, the IRS commenced an audit of the Company’s 2015 Federal tax return. Based upon the audit results, the Company has made provisions of approximately $1.0 million as a liability in its financial statements as well as an estimated $0.6 million of receivables for an additional refund that it believes is due.
On September 27, 2016, a tax warrant was issued against the Company by the Florida Department of Revenue (the “DOR”) for unpaid 2014 state income taxes in the approximate amount of $0.9 million, including penalties and interest. The Company entered into a Stipulation Agreement with the DOR allowing the Company to make monthly installments until July 2019. The Company has made payments to reduce the amount owed to approximately $$0.4 million as of September 30, 2019. The Company intends to renegotiate another Stipulation agreement. However, there can be no assurance the Company will be successful. The remaining balance accrued of approximately $0.4 million remained outstanding to the DOR at September 30, 2019.
In December of 2016, TCS-Florida, L.P. (“Tetra”), filed suit against the Company for failure to make the required payments under an equipment leasing contract that the Company had with Tetra (see Note 10). On January 3, 2017, Tetra received a Default Judgment against the Company in the amount of $2.6 million, representing the balance owed on the leases, as well as additional interest, penalties and fees. In January and February of 2017, the Company made payments to Tetra relating to this judgment aggregating $0.7 million, and on February 15, 2017, the Company entered into a forbearance agreement with Tetra whereby the remaining $1.9 million due would be paid in 24 equal monthly installments. The Company has not maintained the payment schedule to Tetra. As a result of this default, in May 2018, Tetra and the Company agreed to dispose of certain equipment and the proceeds from the sale have been applied to the outstanding balance. The balance owed to Tetra at September 30, 2019 was $0.3 million and the Company remains in default.
In December of 2016, DeLage Landen Financial Services, Inc. (“DeLage”), filed suit against the Company for failure to make the required payments under an equipment leasing contract that the Company had with DeLage (see Note 10). On January 24, 2017, DeLage received a default judgment against the Company in the approximate amount of $1.0 million, representing the balance owed on the lease, as well as additional interest, penalties and fees. The Company recognized this amount in its consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2016. On February 8, 2017, a Stay of Execution was filed and under its terms the balance due was to be paid in variable monthly installments through January of 2019, with an implicit interest rate of 4.97%. The Company and DeLage have now disposed of certain equipment and reduced the balance owed to DeLage. A balance of $0.2 million remained outstanding at September 30, 2019.
On December 7, 2016, the holders of the Tegal Notes (see Note 7) filed suit against the Company seeking payment for the amounts due under the notes in the aggregate of the principal of $341,612, and accrued interest of $43,000. A request for entry of default judgment was filed on January 24, 2017. On April 23, 2018, the holders of the Tegal Notes received a judgment against the Company. To date, the Company has repaid $5,513 of this amount.
In November 2017, a former shareholder of Genomas, Inc., Phenomas, LLC, filed suit against the Company for payment of a $200,000 note payable by the Company’s subsidiary, Genomas. This note is recorded in the financial statements of the subsidiary and is not payable directly from the Company. The Company has made payments totaling $120,000 against this note and agreed to a payment schedule in order to dismiss the legal action. On November 12, 2018, Phenomas, LLC filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the suit without prejudice.
The counterparty to the prepaid forward purchase agreement entered into by the Company on March 31, 2016, as amended, filed an arbitration proceeding under the agreement with regard to the outstanding balance. During the nine months ended September 30, 2019, Mr. Diamantis advanced the Company $9.9 million, which was used to repay all obligations under the prepaid forward purchase agreement, as more fully discussed in Note 7.
Two former employees of the Company’s CollabRx, Inc. subsidiary have filed suits in a California state court in connection with amounts claimed to be owed under their respective employment agreements with the subsidiary. One former employee received a judgment in October 2018 for approximately $253,000. The other former employee’s claim is for approximately $110,000. The Company is considering its options to refute these matters and believes the claims against the Company to be frivolous and outside of entitlement and contractual agreements.
The Company, as well as many of our subsidiaries, are defendants in a case filed in Broward County Circuit Court by TCA Global Credit Master Fund, L.P. The plaintiff alleges a breach by Medytox Solutions, Inc. of its obligations under a debenture and claims damages of approximately $2,030,000 plus interest, costs and fees. The Company and the other subsidiaries are sued as alleged guarantors of the debenture. The complaint was filed on August 1, 2018. The Company has recorded the principal balance and interest owed under the debenture agreement for the period ended September 30, 2019. The Company and all defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, but have not recorded any potential liability related to any further damages.
On September 13, 2018, Laboratory Corporation of America sued EPIC Reference Labs, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company, in Palm Beach County Circuit Court for amounts claimed to be owed of approximately $148,000. The Company has recorded the amount owed in accrued expenses at September 30, 2019. The court awarded a judgment against EPIC Reference Labs, Inc. in May 2019 for approximately $155,000.
In July 2019, Roche Diagnostics Corporation sued EPIC Reference Labs, Inc. in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County claiming approximately $240,000 under an agreement to purchase laboratory supplies. This suit is in the early stages.
In August 2019, EPIC Reference Labs, Inc. and Medytox Diagnostics, Inc. were sued by Beckman Coulter, Inc. in the same court under an agreement to purchase laboratory supplies. The plaintiff claims damages of approximately $106,000. This case is in the early stages.
In July 2019, the landlord of Medytox Solutions, Inc. received a judgment in the amount of approximately $413,000 in connection with failure to pay under an office lease in West Palm Beach, Florida.
In February 2018, Techlogix, Inc. received a judgment of approximately $72,000 against the Company and HTS in the Superior Court of Middlesex County Massachusetts.
Following the Company’s decision to suspend operations at Jamestown Regional Medical Center in June 2019 a number of vendors remain unpaid. A number have initiated or threatened legal actions. The Company believes it will come to satisfactory arrangements with these parties as it works towards reopening the hospital. On June 10, 2019, the Company hired a new CEO to oversee the reopening of the hospital and took steps to re-enter the Medicare program. The hospital received initial approval of its application to reactivate the Medicare agreement in August and is currently planning the reopening of the hospital. Negotiations with vendors are ongoing.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef